anticlimacus wrote:Producers do not simply "cater" to consumer preferences--they also manufacture consumer preferences and limit them.
Of course individual procedures try to impact consumer preferences. But they do so against competitive attempt by other producers (and non-producers like governments and non-profit organisations) to impact consumer preferences in their own direction.
Possibly the strongest brand in the world - Coca Cola, failed miserably to "manufacture" consumer preference for New Coke. Microsoft today appears to be failing, despite an incredibly strong market position, to "manufacture" consumer preference for Windows 8. To give just two examples. More generally, turnover in the corporate world is a clear proof that even the strongest corporations are unable to "manufacture" enough consumer preference to keep themselves alive.
And, by the way, there is nothing particular to corporations in attempting to influence consumer choice. All organisations do, including labour unions, environmental advocacy groups and, of course (and with much more power) governments.
As for limiting consumer choice, this is exclusively government privilege. No corporation can stop its competitors from offering alternatives to its products (though many would love to) without relying on their friends in government.
We can take an example also from the conflict between labor and capital: there is also little doubt that most capitalists need labor, nevertheless labor--particularly today--has little power against capital.
This entire "labour vs. capital" argument is completely off. First, "capital" isn't a person or even a group of people. It is a label for productive resources. It has no will, interests, or even power. You might as well talk about "labour vs. steel", or "management vs. electricity".
Second, your are confusing capital owners, management, capitalists and entrepreneurs, all different (and simplistically grouped as "capitalists"). More often than not, an entrepreneur "hires" both capital (in the form of a bank loan) and labour. In many small companies, labour
is management, whereas "capital" is hired.
Third, labour has
exactly as much power as management, seeing as they both need each other, and both have significant range of alternative opportunities. In specific cases, an individual labourer may have more or less options open to them.
Finally, legislation is vastly biased in favour of labour. Individual workers are always at liberty to leave their place of employment for any (or no) reason. But most countries have rules that severely restrict the similar freedom of the employer to terminate the employment relationship.
The main problem for labour isn't being exploited by employers directly, but rather having their alternative productive options (primarily for self-employment or starting a small business) curtailed through government regulation, often at the behest of employers.
capital has become more concentrated in the hands of a few than ever before
This is totally false. People wishing to hire capital have literally hundreds of banks and various funds to choose from. If you are worried about concentration of power, "capital" isn't the place to look. Government is.
The problem is that it totally ignores the social divisions produced within the capitalist system and the inherent conflicts that come with it as a result of the antithetical distribution of power coupled with the conflicting interests.
What social divisions? I don't know that it was ever possible, but today, it is certainly impossible to even tell which person is "labour" and which is a "capitalist". Not only do those people not belong to different social divisions, they routinely change roles through their careers. A man might start as an inexperienced worker, later start his own little business, perhaps subsequently get hired as middle management, and end his career living off a retirement portfolio - i.e. become a pure "capitalist".
A capitalist does not simply need a worker. A capitalist needs a profit and seeks to use a worker in order to get that profit. The worker is a mere means to an ends and is of no real concern of the capitalist and can therefore be manipulated, abused, threatened, starved, payed less and less, given worse working conditions, etc.--just so long as the capitalist can get away with it and make a profit.
A worker does not simply need a job. A worker needs a salary and seeks to use an employer in order to get that salary. The employer is a mere means to an end, and if of no real concern of the worker and can therefore be manipulated, abused, threatened, given less and less work, or perform work of lower and lower quality, etc.--just so long as the worker can get away with it and earn his salary.
A consumer does not simply need a supermarket. A consumer needs food and seeks to use a supermarket in order to get that food. The supermarket is a mere means to an end, and if of no real concern of the consumer and can therefore be manipulated, abandoned, paid less and less, etc.--just so long as the consumer can get away with it and get his food.
In fact, the worker
cannot be paid less and less, or given worse working conditions, because the worker can always leave. And in fact, workers are being paid
more and more, and work under
better and better conditions because of that.
And I think that even you, Eran, will admit that capitalism has been ridden with conflicts between labor and capitalists.
Every system has some conflicts. My marriage has conflicts. My relations with my parents and children have conflicts. So what?
By and large, capitalism has been an incredibly successful system
from the perspective of workers.
Just consider - the holy grail of politicians and workers alike is
JOBS. What is a "job"? It is an opportunity for a worker to convert his labour to a useful, desirable product (private sector jobs, that is). And while (particularly in an unregulated market) workers can certainly convert their labour to products (including services) without an employer, most workers (for a very good reason) find what an employer has to offer - a job - to be very valuable.
Now normal people, when offered a very valuable thing, tend to be grateful and appreciative. Most workers, indeed, tend to be grateful and appreciative of being offered a job.
A capitalist is thinking, "I've got some stuff that I think I can get consumers (workers) to spend their money on, whether or not they need it.
Indeed. But not whether they
want it or not. A capitalist (actually, an entrepreneur, whether or not he actually owns any capital!) is at the complete mercy of his consumers. At any moment and for any reason (without even owing him an explanation), consumers can decide they no longer
want his product, and years of work can go down the drain.
A consumer always has a wide range of options (again, setting aside the effect of government compulsion) to choose between. Consumers shamelessly play producers and retailers against each other. Shopping around for the best possible deal. Sometimes negotiating, sometimes simply abandoning their previous supplier.
And if not, I have the means to make stuff that I can get people to buy, whether or not they need it or want it."
Please explain what means are available to capitalist to get people to buy stuff they don't want, and why so many corporations fail so miserably in getting people to buy their stuff that they go out of business.
Moreover, products, like capital, can be moved from place to place at a drop of a hat.
Very few products can be moved "at a drop of a hat". Some products (houses, for example) cannot be moved at all. Some (personal services) can only be moved at great expense.
If the standard of consumption is higher in one country (or region), products can be moved to a different country where higher quality is not required--thus creating more surplus value for the capitalist.
But also where prices that can be charged off consumers are lower, often causing a previously profitable line of production to become unprofitable.
More generally, you make it sound like it is easy to make a profit by being a capitalist. In fact, it is very difficult (which is precisely why the services of a successful entrepreneur are so handsomely rewarded).
Credit also comes into play, as borrowing money for interest is a market in and of itself encouraging workers to continue to consume and consume and consume--even though they are economically weaker and weaker and weaker (for instance, people who go bankrupt ironically often get more credit card deals).
This is absurd. Nobody makes money by lending to people who cannot repay the loan.
There is conflict, and that makes a much more dynamic and socially divisive picture than you are willing to describe.
As I mentioned above, there is conflict (or, at least, potential conflict) in every single human relationship. However, unlike relationships based on force (e.g. between government and its subjects), relationships based on voluntary cooperation (such as between producer and consumer, or between employer and employee) are
always beneficial (a-priori, from the subjective perspective of the participants).
Free men are not equal and equal men are not free.
Government is not the solution. Government is the problem.